The World Trade Organization today issued its ruling on the European Union appeal of previous WTO findings that Airbus received illegal subsidies for its commercial airplane programs.

The WTO appeal decision affirmed that the A380 and A350 projects received improper subsidies.

WTO case summary:
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/di ... kmk316abrw

=

Outcome hardly a shock.

Its no secret EU states have greatly aided Airbus and its projects. Afterall the entire endeavour was a pet project by national governments to start with.

So yet again Airbus+EU get admonished for offering monies for projects outside of normal commercial terms such as the benefit of loans offered at token low-interest rates.

From the linked report....
Overall conclusion

In summary, the Panel found that:

The United States failed to demonstrate that the French, German, Spanish and UK A80 and A350XWB LA/MSF measures constituted prohibited export subsidies
The United States failed to demonstrate that the French, German, Spanish and UK A350XWB LA/MSF measures constituted prohibited import substitution subsidies
The United States demonstrated that the European Union and certain member States failed to comply with the adopted DSB recommendations and rulings and, in particular, the obligation under Article 7.8 of the SCM Agreement “to take appropriate steps to remove the adverse effects or … withdraw the subsidy”,
It appears an arbitrator will now determine the remedy.
It is expected that the WTO will rule in 2019 on US aid to Boeing.

Doubt anything's going to come of it.

Trump will likely bluster and talk sanctions/tariffs against Airbus and Europe (anything to distract)... but there's too many interested parties on both sides of the aisle that would lose money over any real punitive action. Doubt he'd be able to do it.

LAX772LR wrote:

Doubt anything's going to come of it.

Trump will likely bluster and talk sanctions/tariffs against Airbus and Europe (anything to distract)... but there's too many interested parties on both sides of the aisle that would lose money over any real punitive action. Doubt he'd be able to do it.

There is plenty of orders/revenue to go around for both Airbus and Boeing, this is a MOOT fight!

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

I really hope trump does that. Both in airbus and steel + aluminum.

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

You seriously want that?

mercure1 wrote:

Outcome hardly a shock. Its no secret EU states have greatly aided Airbus and its projects. Afterall the entire endeavour was a pet project by national governments to start with. So yet again Airbus+EU get admonished for offering monies for projects outside of normal commercial terms such as the benefit of loans offered at token low-interest rates.

......thanks for clearing that up for us 'mercure1' ...... we had no idea......

Other summaries of this investigation are of course available.

Looking forward to hearing what the WTO thinks of all the state aid packages, political leveraging, costing deferrals, below cost pricing and military cross-subsidies Boeing adopts, when the WTO reports on their activities next year.

Look; at the end of the day; we all know it takes countless billions to launch a new aircraft type, and both large OEM's have taken part in naturally taking advantage of whatever finances are on offer. What we end up with as passengers and enthusiasts are wonderful machines like the A350, A380, B787 and B777 to marvel at and fly us around the world; I personally am in awe at the engineering achievements of both Airbus and Boeing, and long may they both continue pushing the envelope of civil aviation.

Both OEM's have been guilty of accepting aid-packages that are being judged now as maybe 'unacceptable' and we can only guess at how new aircraft projects in China and Russia are being funded.

All of these A v B arguments 'mercure1' IMO are just one huge pi$$ing contest......

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

I wouldn’t go that route.

Just sit on the right to do so. Wait and see what the balance is once the case against Boeing is heard. In the meantime launch NMA and make it clear that state funding of further products will trigger action. Airbus will either need a lot of financing or bank loans as I believe they have a lot of major projects coming up.

The reality is you aren’t getting back any prior damages. It just won’t hapoen. What you want is to level the field going forward.

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

......you might want to think that one through a bit more carefully.......

SelseyBill wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Outcome hardly a shock. Its no secret EU states have greatly aided Airbus and its projects. Afterall the entire endeavour was a pet project by national governments to start with. So yet again Airbus+EU get admonished for offering monies for projects outside of normal commercial terms such as the benefit of loans offered at token low-interest rates.

......thanks for clearing that up for us 'mercure1' ...... we had no idea......

Other summaries of this investigation are of course available.

Looking forward to hearing what the WTO thinks of all the state aid packages, political leveraging, costing deferrals, below cost pricing and military cross-subsidies Boeing adopts, when the WTO reports on their activities next year.

Look; at the end of the day; we all know it takes countless billions to launch a new aircraft type, and both large OEM's have taken part in naturally taking advantage of whatever finances are on offer. What we end up with as passengers and enthusiasts are wonderful machines like the A350, A380, B787 and B777 to marvel at and fly us around the world; I personally am in awe at the engineering achievements of both Airbus and Boeing, and long may they both continue pushing the envelope of civil aviation.

Both OEM's have been guilty of accepting aid-packages that are being judged now as maybe 'unacceptable' and we can only guess at how new aircraft projects in China and Russia are being funded.

All of these A v B arguments 'mercure1' IMO are just one huge pi$$ing contest......

That last line is garbage. While I don’t think much will come of it do you think it’s an Internet pissing contest to the MD line worker who lost his job when the whole company went under? There are actual real people involved in these things.

It’s not just about pretty airplanes for people here to slobber over.

Looking forward to see how WTO will rule on US aid to Boeing.
Millions wasted on lawyers from both sides.

bigjku wrote:

......... launch NMA and make it clear that state funding of further products will trigger action. Airbus will either need a lot of financing or bank loans as I believe they have a lot of major projects coming up........

......and presumably whilst Boeing themselves are launching NMA/797, they also need to demonstrate to everybody in a clear way that they are not receiving any (Washington State or South Carolina) state-aid.

I'd imagine there will be plenty of folks up in Canada and in Europe watching 797 financing very closely......

bigjku wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Outcome hardly a shock. Its no secret EU states have greatly aided Airbus and its projects. Afterall the entire endeavour was a pet project by national governments to start with. So yet again Airbus+EU get admonished for offering monies for projects outside of normal commercial terms such as the benefit of loans offered at token low-interest rates.

......thanks for clearing that up for us 'mercure1' ...... we had no idea......

Other summaries of this investigation are of course available.

Looking forward to hearing what the WTO thinks of all the state aid packages, political leveraging, costing deferrals, below cost pricing and military cross-subsidies Boeing adopts, when the WTO reports on their activities next year.

Look; at the end of the day; we all know it takes countless billions to launch a new aircraft type, and both large OEM's have taken part in naturally taking advantage of whatever finances are on offer. What we end up with as passengers and enthusiasts are wonderful machines like the A350, A380, B787 and B777 to marvel at and fly us around the world; I personally am in awe at the engineering achievements of both Airbus and Boeing, and long may they both continue pushing the envelope of civil aviation.

Both OEM's have been guilty of accepting aid-packages that are being judged now as maybe 'unacceptable' and we can only guess at how new aircraft projects in China and Russia are being funded.

All of these A v B arguments 'mercure1' IMO are just one huge pi$$ing contest......

That last line is garbage. While I don’t think much will come of it do you think it’s an Internet pissing contest to the MD line worker who lost his job when the whole company went under? There are actual real people involved in these things.

It’s not just about pretty airplanes for people here to slobber over.

....only 'garbage' it seems when US workers are involved.

What about those folks up in Montreal and in Belfast, who Boeing recently wanted to 'lay-off' with their 'Bombardier' action over the C-Series.......

aaexecplat wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

You seriously want that?

Would it resonate well with his voters, so I would not rule that out.

SelseyBill wrote:

bigjku wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

......thanks for clearing that up for us 'mercure1' ...... we had no idea......

Other summaries of this investigation are of course available.

Looking forward to hearing what the WTO thinks of all the state aid packages, political leveraging, costing deferrals, below cost pricing and military cross-subsidies Boeing adopts, when the WTO reports on their activities next year.

Look; at the end of the day; we all know it takes countless billions to launch a new aircraft type, and both large OEM's have taken part in naturally taking advantage of whatever finances are on offer. What we end up with as passengers and enthusiasts are wonderful machines like the A350, A380, B787 and B777 to marvel at and fly us around the world; I personally am in awe at the engineering achievements of both Airbus and Boeing, and long may they both continue pushing the envelope of civil aviation.

Both OEM's have been guilty of accepting aid-packages that are being judged now as maybe 'unacceptable' and we can only guess at how new aircraft projects in China and Russia are being funded.

All of these A v B arguments 'mercure1' IMO are just one huge pi$$ing contest......

That last line is garbage. While I don’t think much will come of it do you think it’s an Internet pissing contest to the MD line worker who lost his job when the whole company went under? There are actual real people involved in these things.

It’s not just about pretty airplanes for people here to slobber over.

....only 'garbage' it seems when US workers are involved.

What about those folks up in Montreal and in Belfast, who Boeing recently wanted to 'lay-off' with their 'Bombardier' action over the C-Series.......

Boeing didn’t put their jobs at risk. Incompetent management did that. Then Canada and Quebec basically footed the bill basically to protect jobs which is exactly the problem we are talking about here.

A more accurate analogy would have been the US government stepping in to finance MD on a new aircraft to keep it afloat as an operating entity. Which it didn’t do.

SelseyBill wrote:

bigjku wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

......thanks for clearing that up for us 'mercure1' ...... we had no idea......

Other summaries of this investigation are of course available.

Looking forward to hearing what the WTO thinks of all the state aid packages, political leveraging, costing deferrals, below cost pricing and military cross-subsidies Boeing adopts, when the WTO reports on their activities next year.

Look; at the end of the day; we all know it takes countless billions to launch a new aircraft type, and both large OEM's have taken part in naturally taking advantage of whatever finances are on offer. What we end up with as passengers and enthusiasts are wonderful machines like the A350, A380, B787 and B777 to marvel at and fly us around the world; I personally am in awe at the engineering achievements of both Airbus and Boeing, and long may they both continue pushing the envelope of civil aviation.

Both OEM's have been guilty of accepting aid-packages that are being judged now as maybe 'unacceptable' and we can only guess at how new aircraft projects in China and Russia are being funded.

All of these A v B arguments 'mercure1' IMO are just one huge pi$$ing contest......

That last line is garbage. While I don’t think much will come of it do you think it’s an Internet pissing contest to the MD line worker who lost his job when the whole company went under? There are actual real people involved in these things.

It’s not just about pretty airplanes for people here to slobber over.

....only 'garbage' it seems when US workers are involved.

What about those folks up in Montreal and in Belfast, who Boeing recently wanted to 'lay-off' with their 'Bombardier' action over the C-Series.......

BBD’s subsidies actually predate Boeing’s actions. But no worries I’m pretty sure Brazil has already filed a complaint against Canada with the WTO over the issue.

SelseyBill wrote:

bigjku wrote:

......... launch NMA and make it clear that state funding of further products will trigger action. Airbus will either need a lot of financing or bank loans as I believe they have a lot of major projects coming up........

......and presumably whilst Boeing themselves are launching NMA/797, they also need to demonstrate to everybody in a clear way that they are not receiving any (Washington State or South Carolina) state-aid.

I'd imagine there will be plenty of folks up in Canada and in Europe watching 797 financing very closely......

They may well be. As I said we need to see what the WTO says about these things in 9 months. I suspect they will find the state issue to be far less of one than many here hope for a variety of reasons but it’s hardly worth debating here until the ruling comes down.

seahawk wrote:

aaexecplat wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

You seriously want that?

Would it resonate well with his voters, so I would not rule that out.

It surely would resonate with the voters working for the numerous American suppliers Airbus relies on... Hardly a good idea.

bigjku wrote:

In the meantime launch NMA and make it clear that state funding of further products will trigger action.

While using launch aid to fix the NMA business case?

Aviano789 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Doubt anything's going to come of it.
Trump will likely bluster and talk sanctions/tariffs against Airbus and Europe (anything to distract)... but there's too many interested parties on both sides of the aisle that would lose money over any real punitive action. Doubt he'd be able to do it.

There is plenty of orders/revenue to go around for both Airbus and Boeing, this is a MOOT fight!

It seems ideology is driving things more than greed.

SelseyBill wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

......you might want to think that one through a bit more carefully.......

Trump never thinks anything through. And it seems he is not on his own.

fsabo wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

I really hope trump does that. Both in airbus and steel + aluminum.

Do you not think the EU would retaliate?

Revelation wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Doubt anything's going to come of it.
Trump will likely bluster and talk sanctions/tariffs against Airbus and Europe (anything to distract)... but there's too many interested parties on both sides of the aisle that would lose money over any real punitive action. Doubt he'd be able to do it.

There is plenty of orders/revenue to go around for both Airbus and Boeing, this is a MOOT fight!

It seems ideology is driving things more than greed.

Huh??

Since when have politicos ever truly given a damn about ideology?
...they just use it as a smokescreen to mask their object(ives) of their greed.

E.g.:
Legalizing open/flagrant bribery = "campaign contributions"
Invading a sovereign country for its oil = "liberating from a dictator"
Building for-profit prisons while enacting 3strike rules for minor offenses = "cracking down on crime"
Exempting 16yr-olds from child labor protections so they work for pennies = "teaching responsibility"

Nothing's changed.

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

Starting a tariff war that would smash Boeing as counter effect would be nice indeed.

Polot wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

bigjku wrote:

That last line is garbage. While I don’t think much will come of it do you think it’s an Internet pissing contest to the MD line worker who lost his job when the whole company went under? There are actual real people involved in these things.

It’s not just about pretty airplanes for people here to slobber over.

....only 'garbage' it seems when US workers are involved.

What about those folks up in Montreal and in Belfast, who Boeing recently wanted to 'lay-off' with their 'Bombardier' action over the C-Series.......

BBD’s subsidies actually predate Boeing’s actions. But no worries I’m pretty sure Brazil has already filed a complaint against Canada with the WTO over the issue.

I'm not believing for one minute Embraer doesn't get subsidies in one form or another from its own government; good for them; but be careful what you wish for Brazil. Of course BBD's subsidies pre-date Boeings' action; it would be a practical impossibility for even Boeing to complain about something that was yet to happen.

Lets not forget that Boeing complained about BBD bidding for contracts with US airlines by pricing below cost of production; something that Boeing had evidently done many times, including the United 737-700 contest........ its fine for Boeing to do that for internal USA business; but if it tries the same trick bidding overseas; (lets say for 797 contracts); then its a different matter altogether, and plenty of other nations will be watching closely given Boeings stance over BBD.

BHXLOVER wrote:

fsabo wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

I really hope trump does that. Both in airbus and steel + aluminum.

Do you not think the EU would retaliate?

The problem with the EU is it doesn't know how to deal with trump. It tries to first talk sense into him and when that fails it appeases him.

I will not be surprised if trump does both aluminum + steel and also airbus. This will put pressure on the EU to do something. If they do nothing, then trump will bully them even more.

Unfortunately, this will not end well.

SelseyBill wrote:

Polot wrote:

SelseyBill wrote:

....only 'garbage' it seems when US workers are involved.

What about those folks up in Montreal and in Belfast, who Boeing recently wanted to 'lay-off' with their 'Bombardier' action over the C-Series.......

BBD’s subsidies actually predate Boeing’s actions. But no worries I’m pretty sure Brazil has already filed a complaint against Canada with the WTO over the issue.

I'm not believing for one minute Embraer doesn't get subsidies in one form or another from its own government; good for them; but be careful what you wish for Brazil. Of course BBD's subsidies pre-date Boeings' action; it would be a practical impossibility for even Boeing to complain about something that was yet to happen.

Lets not forget that Boeing complained about BBD bidding for contracts with US airlines by pricing below cost of production; something that Boeing had evidently done many times, including the United 737-700 contest........ its fine for Boeing to do that for internal USA business; but if it tries the same trick bidding overseas; (lets say for 797 contracts); then its a different matter altogether, and plenty of other nations will be watching closely given Boeings stance over BBD.

And this is where program accounting makes sense to evaluate a program. No one sells the first frames at a profit. Program accounting at the very least puts the onus on the company to argue their pricing against some projected number of deliveries as being reasonable.

BBD isn’t making money on frame one. On the order book they have they weren’t going to make money on frame 300. Or 400. They have no sales to support a block beyond that. BBD could have provided their cost projections and that would be a very effective defense. They didn’t. Probably for the same reason Airbus bought that huge share for $1. The C-Series program is effectively without value in the hands of BBD. It was never going to make money.

One can ignore that fundamental difference. But it is quite important.

To me the best solution is simply for everyone to stop taking government money. My preference would be for Washington state to simply end its tax breaks and reform its tax code if it wants to retain business to something competitive with other states across the board. I am not a fan of industry specific breaks. But it’s less targeted at making a product competive for Boeing than it is assuring Boeing doesn’t just up and build things in Kansas or South Dakota or any number of states with minimum of no taxes on such activity.

For the most part I don’t even really mind what Airbus and Boeing get up to here. It’s nothing that every other big corporation doesn’t do. I wish we would all agree to stop catering to them frankly. But the deal BBD got is beyond the pale for me. That was a straight cash equity bailout and makes what Airbus and Boeing have been doing look like nothing in terms of the proportion of risk within BBD the Canadian and Quebec government took on. If that kind of crap gets too far it ends very poorly.

Airbus and Boeing will work it out I suspect. Boeing will be content if RLI stops and Airbus just has to get money on commercial terms. Airbus should be able to obtain such funding now. It’s the simplest way out for everyone.

Boeing needs to just shutdown and liquidate all their assets at this point, they have become a political machine instead of an aerospace manufacturer.

BHXLOVER wrote:

fsabo wrote:

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

I really hope trump does that. Both in airbus and steel + aluminum.

Do you not think the EU would retaliate?

The European Commission announced today that they would "take swift action to ensure it is fully in line with the WTO's final decision in this case” which will authorize the largest ever retaliatory U.S. tariffs "up to the amount of calculated annual harm", so at least publicly the EU is saying they are accepting the ruling and its finding that the U.S. has the right to impose retaliatory tariffs. Considering that this was the EU's appeal and that this case took 14 years to resolve, the EU's statement seems pretty resigned to the outcome given the circumstances.

What I find most interesting and surprising is that not only does the ruling give the U.S. latitude to impose tariffs on a whole range of European products (not just planes), but that Boeing's legal counsel doesn't even expect that the retaliatory tariffs the U.S. may implement would even target European aircraft.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/38779 ... iffs-on-eu

Super80Fan wrote:

Boeing needs to just shutdown and liquidate all their assets at this point, they have become a political machine instead of an aerospace manufacturer.

Super unfortunate, but true.

Much of the commentary shows a complete ignorance of the subject or just intellectual dishonesty.

The expressive and sustainable growth of international trade depended on the acceptance of rules and standards, however imperfect. Thus countries have decided to join international and multilateral bodies such as the WTO and OECD. This adherence occurred because the advantages outweighed the inevitable loss of economic freedom.

Asking Boeing, Bombardier, Airbus or Embraer to give up the right to complain about government subsidies or aid is to deny a basic principle of capitalism, the same regime that has provided incredible technical and material progress.

In the 1990s Canada's claim forced Brazil to change its export financing scheme for aircraft. Following that, Canada itself had to review illegal aid to BBD.

Europe has been very active in protecting its agricultural market as well as forced large US companies in the information technology segment to follow certain conduct, under penalty of high fines.

The aviation community has a strange belief that the international standards followed by the most diverse industries will never apply to the commercialization of aircraft. This belief is naive and will be confronted in the coming years with the development of projects strongly supported by the governments of China, Russia and India. When this time comes, those who attack the WTO today will call for more firm action to level the playing field.

Super80Fan wrote:

Boeing needs to just shutdown and liquidate all their assets at this point, they have become a political machine instead of an aerospace manufacturer.

100%

Nean1 wrote:

Much of the commentary shows a complete ignorance of the subject or just intellectual dishonesty.

Aka "whoever is not on my side is stupid or not telling the truth". Wow, I'm convinced now

Are there any airframes from Boeing or Airbus which can escape these proposed tariffs?
For Airbus will A32XNeo and A330NEO be likely free from tariff?
For Boeing will 777 and 737Maxes be likely free from tariff when WTO are through with them.

If so it will completely change the profile of Customers' fleets as nobody wants to pay a tariff if they can avoid it.

leghorn wrote:

Are there any airframes from Boeing or Airbus which can escape these proposed tariffs?
For Airbus will A32XNeo and A330NEO be likely free from tariff?
For Boeing will 777 and 737Maxes be likely free from tariff when WTO are through with them.

If so it will completely change the profile of Customers' fleets as nobody wants to pay a tariff if they can avoid it.

WTO ruled already that 777 and 787 were illegally subsidized by WA state already .......

Jayafe wrote:

Super80Fan wrote:

Boeing needs to just shutdown and liquidate all their assets at this point, they have become a political machine instead of an aerospace manufacturer.

100%

Nean1 wrote:

Much of the commentary shows a complete ignorance of the subject or just intellectual dishonesty.

Aka "whoever is not on my side is stupid or not telling the truth". Wow, I'm convinced now

He actually laid out a pretty objective set of information related to trade dispute resolution under international agreements, and he made a very good point. The WTO has adjudicated hundreds of similar subsidy, dumping, and trade cases over the years related to everything from soybeans to washing machines. The idea that somehow trade agreements, WTO processes, and adjudication wouldn't apply to airplane manufacture and sales like they do in every other sector, and that Boeing should inexplicably "liquidate and shut down" simply because the USTR exercised legal rights under trade agreements to protect its interests is indeed an ill-informed or misstated position. It would be just as ludicrous if anyone said something similar about Airbus if it wins its trade case....parties would never enter into international trade agreements if there was no enforcement mechanism or dispute resolution process that they had the ability to exercise rights under and pursue claims.

Wow, are we still on this? This is generational litigation, lawyers have put their children through college on this case who are now training to become lawyers in order to carry on this litigation when their parents retire and to fund putting their own children through college...

This could open the way for UA, DL and AA to get rid of their Airbus contracts without having to pay a penalty.

seahawk wrote:

Nice chance to impose import tariffs on Airbus now. Trump should not let it pass.

...and when he does, a nice chance for Europe to retaliate twofold with tariffs on everything made by boeing. Pun intended.

seahawk wrote:

This could open the way for UA, DL and AA to get rid of their Airbus contracts without having to pay a penalty.

That kind unlawful and arbitrary breach on contracts would make financing of aircraft programs very, very difficult in the future.

If a trade war starts off from this you'll end up waiting for the 797 for a loooooong time.

seahawk wrote:

This could open the way for UA, DL and AA to get rid of their Airbus contracts without having to pay a penalty.

That way lies madness. But given what has been happening recently nothing would surprise me.

BoeingVista wrote:

Wow, are we still on this? This is generational litigation, lawyers have put their children through college on this case who are now training to become lawyers in order to carry on this litigation when their parents retire and to fund putting their own children through college...

And it’s not over:

the same appellate body that ruled on Tuesday must still decide the other half of the dueling claims: allegations that the United States improperly subsidised Boeing.

Source: https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/transp ... ith-europe

Decision is expected for the second half of 2018

And what do you suggest next, that they also get rid of their hundreds of Airbuses just because the demise of Airbus is your biggest dream?

seahawk wrote:

This could open the way for UA, DL and AA to get rid of their Airbus contracts without having to pay a penalty.

Prediction: we will see a world where products are developed that are completely 'US Content and License free', ‘EU Contents and license free’, ‘Chinese Content and license free’, ‘Russian Content and license free', not necessary as a mandatory, but rather to be prepared for any case of future dispute. World changed and as just Chinese ZTE learned that they had to shut down production because they couldn’t import UD designed chips anymore the worlds needs to be prepared to be independent from certain countries. This will not happen without government support in one or the other case, but when things get unreliable others will react.

Flyglobal

seahawk wrote:

This could open the way for UA, DL and AA to get rid of their Airbus contracts without having to pay a penalty.

I assume Boeing will be ready to meet all the fleet supply demands in the timespan Airbus had planned to deliver them in? It would be strange for DL and AA to cancel their orders in favour of inferior aircraft like the MAX9 and MAX 10, but I guess that's the way forward if you want to cut off the USA from the rest of the world. I hope Boeing is very able to quickly source parts that are currently made in the EU, because otherwise they may end up with a backlog of planes they can't deliver and plenty of contract penalties.

Flyglobal wrote:

Prediction: we will see a world where products are developed that are completely 'US Content and License free', ‘EU Contents and license free’, ‘Chinese Content and license free’, ‘Russian Content and license free', not necessary as a mandatory, but rather to be prepared for any case of future dispute. World changed and as just Chinese ZTE learned that they had to shut down production because they couldn’t import UD designed chips anymore the worlds needs to be prepared to be independent from certain countries. This will not happen without government support in one or the other case, but when things get unreliable others will react.

Flyglobal

And going that route will leave us all poorer. What recent events have shown is maverick leaders of important economies can adversely affect everyone.

Facebook hate emoji dropper has a (wet) field day...jeez let's have a monopoly so that those pesky Airbi will falter for good... The whole situation does come across like this a giant catch 22 - no one wins - and from the gammut of info available it does seem that Boeing is indeed sitting in a glasshouse of their own and their triumphant bravado seems premature

LAX772LR wrote:

Revelation wrote:

Aviano789 wrote:

There is plenty of orders/revenue to go around for both Airbus and Boeing, this is a MOOT fight!

It seems ideology is driving things more than greed.

Huh??

Since when have politicos ever truly given a damn about ideology?
...they just use it as a smokescreen to mask their object(ives) of their greed.

E.g.:
Legalizing open/flagrant bribery = "campaign contributions"
Invading a sovereign country for its oil = "liberating from a dictator"
Building for-profit prisons while enacting 3strike rules for minor offenses = "cracking down on crime"
Exempting 16yr-olds from child labor protections so they work for pennies = "teaching responsibility"

Nothing's changed.

Those are actually good examples. But you missed this one. Me saying I'll keep quiet if you pay me = extortion, A lawyer saying it = negotiation.